Category: Skepticism

Signs You Might Be A Hypocrite

caution-sign-wallpaper-background-13089-13544-hd-wallpapers

I can think of little else that I despise more than hypocrisy: The application of different standards (of evidence, morality, or anything else) to those things of which we approve or which benefit us vs. those things we dislike or which benefit others.  Of course we are all human and subject to cognitive biases in varying degrees, an unfortunate but inevitable consequence of our hard wiring.  Excessive hypocrisy, however, is a mark of both intellectual laziness and intellectual dishonesty, and especially for those of us who claim the mantle of skeptic / critical thinker / champion of evidence, we should be perpetually vigilant for signs of it in ourselves and take decisive corrective action when we find it.  Here are a few clues that may help you determine whether your hypocrisy self-awareness meter requires calibration.

  • You spend a lot of time defending Milo Yiannopolous and Richard Spencer under the banner of “we have to protect even the most offensive speech,” but did not defend Kathy Griffin’s mock ISIS photo under the banner of “we have to protect even the most offensive speech.”
  • You chastise others for their echo chambers and admonish them to engage with to their opponents, but block people who disagree with you on Facebook and Twitter.
  • You have ever said “fuck your feelings” with regard to perceived political correctness, but lamented the lack of respect shown to Mike Pence when he was booed at a Broadway show.
  • You were horrified by the evangelical Christian trend of “purity balls” but laud hijab as a feminist symbol.
  • You supported the Benghazi investigations but oppose the Trump-Russia investigation.
  • It bothered you that Richard Spencer lost his gym membership, but you think LGBT couples should just find another bakery.
  • You criticize western feminists who talk about sexist imagery in comics for overly frivolous concerns, but complain about women-only screenings of the film Wonder Woman.
  • You called the people who were outraged when Trump bragged about grabbing women’s genitals without their permission “snowflakes,” but not the people who were outraged when Colin Kaepernick didn’t stand for the national anthem.
  • You were more bothered by Michelle Obama’s bare arms than by Melania Trump’s nudity.
  • You characterize Milo Yiannopolous as “just a troll” but an anti-Trump D-list comedian as “a Leftist celebrated public figure.”
  • You dismiss non-binary concepts of gender as not based in science, but defended the “Penis as Social Construct” hoax by saying even if this hoax didn’t debunk the field of gender studies, it doesn’t matter because everyone knows a better hoax would have.
  • You oppose legal abortion but support the death penalty.
  • You said jokes about the death of Roger Ailes were disrespectful of Ailes’s family, but you promote Sandy Hook truther Alex Jones or call criticism of Sean Hannity’s treatment of the Rich family “regressive.”
  • You claim to oppose Islam on behalf of the women it oppresses, but promote personalities who deny the existence of date rape or who call for white women to be publicly flogged for sexual impropriety.
  • You deny that Western colonialism turns Muslims into Islamists, but claim that too much political correctness turns white people into racists.
  • You spent weeks or months condemning the Richard Spencer punch and holding it up as evidence of pervasive violence on the Left, but justified, laughed at, or remained silent when a conservative politician assaulted a journalist and deny it is indicative of a violence problem on the Right.
  • You spend more time worrying about the threat to free speech posed by Ann Coulter being dis-invited from speaking at a college campus than you do about a citizen being convicted and imprisoned for laughing at a government official (or a bill that would send teenagers to federal prison for sexting, or a journalist being arrested for asking a government official a question, or state legislatures passing laws criminalizing peaceful protests).
  • You declare the importance of seeing people as individuals rather than as collectives while making hasty generalizations about feminists, Muslims, Democrats, Leftists, etc.
  • You speak out against anti-LGBT attitudes embraced by conservative Christians, but file anti-LGBT attitudes among Muslims under “cultural differences.”
  • You denigrate the boycott of Sean Hannity’s advertisers in response to his treatment of the Rich family as a regressive leftist attack for “wrong think,” but were supportive or silent when conservatives boycotted Beauty and the Beast for having a gay character (or Hamilton because the cast addressed Mike Pence; or Budweiser, 84 Lumber, CocaCola, Airbnb, Kia, and Tiffany for airing SuperBowl ads with pro-diversity messages; or Nordstrom for dropping Ivanka Trump’s clothing line; or Netflix for having a show called Dear White People; or Starbucks for having insufficiently Christian holiday coffee cups; or Hawaii because a federal judge there ruled against Trump’s travel ban; or Target for encouraging trans people to use their restroom of choice; or Target again for banning loaded guns in its stores; or ABC for cancelling Last Man Standing; or . . .  )

Fighting Feminism with Fallacies

I have watched with alarm over the past several months as a growing number of atheists who fancy themselves Rational Critics of Islam™ have taken to coupling criticism of that religion with attacks on western feminists.  Take, for example, the recent hashtag #SaveDinaAli, a worthy cause in its own right.  Dina Ali is a young Saudi woman who attempted to flee her country’s system of male guardianship, but was intercepted in the Philippines by male relatives who beat her and forced her to return to Saudi Arabia where her fate remains uncertain.  A number of prominent atheists decided to use the hashtag not only to raise awareness about Dina’s plight, but to exploit it in an attempt to shut down western feminist voices.

Yep, ain’t no feminists west of Saudi who care about anything but video games. #SeemsLegit
Sorry, unless it involves death and Islam, file under #FakeNews.
Always, as in 100% of the time, without exception, ever, no citation required because I’m a Certified Rationalist Skeptic(TM).
 

To start with, it should matter to these so-called rational thinkers that such statements are flagrant logical fallacies (strawmanrelative privation, and hasty generalization, to be exact).  This should send up red flags about their rationalism bona fides at the very least, given that sound argumentation was once considered a necessary skill in the atheism toolkit and a person would have to be either appallingly bad at or simply not care about logic to be packing the same three fallacies into tweet after tweet.

It also calls into serious question the authenticity of one’s advocacy for Dina Ali if out of 140 characters ostensibly intended to raise awareness of her situation, a person can spare only 12 for Dina and is compelled to use the other 128 to express contempt for an entire subset of women. Honestly, it takes some spunk to declare yourself a savior of Saudi women when you can’t even write a single tweet that expresses only support for them and nothing else—not to mention gross ignorance about how advocacy works to think that shitting on one cause is necessary to advance another.  Remember that ad campaign by the American Cancer Society where they declared that the parents of premature babies who give money to the March of Dimes are selfish, privileged assholes who want people to die of cancer? Me neither.

What troubles me the most about this trend is how it seeks to set western women as adversaries against their sisters in the Muslim world, exploiting the troubles of the latter simply as a vehicle for tearing down the former.  “Western women have it so easy,” they say. “Western women have no problems.  They’re too self-involved and too obsessed with petty grievances to care about the oppression of women in the Middle East.”  Of course plenty of western women actually do have problems, and not all of them are trivial; so when we hear those accusations and understandably put a hand up to say, “Hold on there, hoss, that’s not quite true,” they seize that objection as proof positive that we in the west think we have it just as bad as women who live under sharia—even though no one has actually said this, or even thinks it.

Silly me, thinking it wasn’t even necessary to compare getting raped to living under male guardianship.

Attacking western feminists who are concerned about, say, the evisceration of women’s healthcare in the US because women in Saudi Arabia live under sharia is exactly the same thing as attacking someone for raising awareness about birth defects because cancer kills more people. By this “reasoning” only the absolute worst atrocities in the world should ever be addressed, in which case curing diseases or fighting Islam would likely not even make the short list.  Moreover, as low as my opinion tends to be about humans in general, even I will admit that most of them are capable of thinking more than one thought at a time. I can be outraged by legislative assaults on women’s bodily autonomy here in the US while at the very same time being outraged by what happened to Dina Ali, and no matter what the anti-feminists claim, I can do something about both of them; I do not have to choose one or the other (and to suggest that I do is yet another logical fallacy). On the other hand, constant attacks that misrepresent and undermine feminism not only do nothing to help women like Dina Ali—they compromise our ability to effect change on important issues closer to home, such as reproductive freedom and pay equity. (I’ll leave it to the reader to decide whether that consequence is a feature or a bug.)

Here, though, is what strikes me as the real crux of the issue: Conflating the legal status of women with the lived experiences of individual women.  Literally no one—at least, no one with a shred of intellectual honesty—would argue that in general, women in the West have better legal standing than women in the Muslim world.  That is a given, and the constant accusations by anti-feminists that western women don’t understand this basic truth are simply lies meant to discredit western feminism.  That being said, it doesn’t necessarily follow that the life of every individual western woman is objectively better than the life of every individual Saudi woman, or that the only women who know hardship are those who live under sharia. Crimes like child sexual abuse, rape, and domestic violence are not constrained by national or religious borders; they may be treated differently by the legal system and economic status may influence access to treatment resources, but the trauma they inflict on their victims is not so easily predicted, categorized, or dismissed. Said another way, telling a Canadian woman “At least you were just raped and not raped AND stoned for adultery” should strike every reasonable and ethical person as not just lacking in empathy, but as downright cruel in how it both minimizes the violence of her assault and scolds her if she has the audacity to not feel all that lucky.  Moreover, there is absolutely nothing to be gained—least of all for the women that these anti-Islam crusaders purport to fight for—by such attempts to measure and quantify degrees of suffering and assign it more or less validity based on whether it was caused by Islam.

Ungrateful western rape victims just have no idea how EASY they have it! Also, eat your goddamn vegetables – don’t you know there are starving kids in Africa?!
 

It is worth noting that the “yeah, but sharia” brigade that is so eager to silence western women over issues of misogyny that still exist in the West because women in Saudi have it worse seem to have an odd blind spot when the subject is no longer the status of women.  I, for one, struggle to recall any of these same characters shrugging off Milo Yiannopolous being disinvited from speaking engagements on college campuses because Raif Badawi had it a lot worse.

Ladies, do you really have legit problems, or are you just dabbling in oppression? Find out with this one weird trick! Has your clit been lopped off? If so, congratulations! You may be sufficiently oppressed to express an opinion. If not, you’re drowning in privilege. STFU.
Are there things that western feminists get wrong? Absolutely. Are there examples of excessive pearl-clutching over grievances that really are petty?  Of course. Are these challenges unique to western feminism? Not by a longshot.  Do I have to choose between fighting for my sisters at home and my sisters abroad?  Hell no.  I don’t have to choose; I won’t choose; and I will continue to speak out against anyone who says I must.

I Have Some Bad News

turtleThis is a modified and updated version of a similar list I posted in February 2016.  The bad news for some people will be that they see some of their closely held beliefs being contradicted here.  For my part the bad news is that the list is not only still relevant but required an update.  Still, there are some things that simply must be said (and more than once, apparently).

 

  • 9/11 was not an inside job.
  • It wasn’t a “false flag” either.
  • Neither was Sandy Hook.
  • Neither were the shootings in Orlando, Charleston, San Bernardino, Colorado Springs, Ft. Hood, or anywhere else.
  • In fact, there is no such thing as a “false flag” (a la Alex Jones).
  • The moon landing really happened.
  • So did the Holocaust.
  • Lizard people aren’t real.
  • Fluoride in the water supply is good for your teeth.
  • The earth is not flat.
  • And it is 4.54 billion years old.
  • And it goes around the sun, not the other way around.
  • There are no chemtrails, just contrails.
  • The Illuminati do not control the music industry.
  • Pizzagate is bullshit.
  • GMOs are just as safe as conventional foods.
  • Organic isn’t healthier.
  • It’s not better for the environment either.
  • Prayer doesn’t work.
  • Astrology doesn’t work either.
  • Neither does homeopathy.
  • But vaccines do.
  • And they don’t cause autism.
  • InfoWars is not news.
  • Alternative medicine is not medicine.
  • Big PharmaTM is not suppressing a known cure for cancer.
  • Including pot.
  • No, seriously – pot does not cure cancer.
  • Everything is made of chemicals.
  • Trump’s inauguration crowd was not the biggest in history.
  • Humans were not healthier 50,000 years ago than they are today.
  • Not 5,000 years ago or 500 years ago either.
  • Guns don’t make you safer.
  • Gay sex does not cause earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts, tsunamis, fires, volcano eruptions, landslides, stock market crashes, train derailments, bridge collapses, oil spills, or anything else.
  • There is no Deep State.
  • Taxes are not theft.
  • Microwave ovens don’t turn into cameras.
  • Nuclear power is safe.
  • The Big Bang really happened.
  • And it happened 13.8 billion years ago.
  • Anthropogenic climate change is real.
  • All life on earth evolved from a common ancestor via natural selection.
  • There is no evidence for ghosts, an afterlife, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, ancient aliens, alien abductions, reincarnation, telepathy, telekinesis, clairvoyance, precognition, the soul, demons, spirits, angels, witchcraft, or magic.
  • There almost certainly is no god.

 

Let Change Begin With Me

I believe that the only hope for humanity lies in the embrace of evidence-based thinking. Whether the subject is religion or science or politics or anything in between, an earnest desire to ascertain reality demands that we seek the best available evidence, acknowledge our biases, do our best to compensate for them, and be willing to adjust our worldview accordingly. This is necessary even (perhaps especially) when doing so is difficult – in other words, all the time.

Intellectual honesty is uncomfortable. Personal growth usually is too. It is easy to talk ourselves into believing that only others suffer the impairment of cognitive bias, or that we are otherwise exceptional and therefore exempt from the rules we expect others to follow. It feels good to be right and even better to be righteous, whereas admitting fallibility can be awkward, humiliating, or painful. But we must resist the siren song of comforting self-delusion and struggle, however clumsily, to reserve the highest standards for ourselves.

Moving beyond superstition and tribalism isn’t just about the satisfaction of being right: It’s about making the world a better place. It’s about clearing away the excuses and the ignorance that too often get in the way of seeing our common humanity, and finding our way to a more ethical, more moral, more productive society.

This is what I want for my child.

It is what all children deserve.

And so it starts with me.

Setting the Record Straight

tin foil hat
Image credit Getty Images

Those who follow my facebook page may have seen my recent post in which I rattled off a list of things that are true – as in, are fully established facts or are overwhelmingly supported by all available evidence. Being that I was in a state of irritation from hours of dealing with Regressive Skeptics I left out a great many items that I wish I had included. This is the list I wish I had posted. For those who have seen the original, please accept my apologies for the repetition, and my thanks to the folks who pointed out conspicuous omissions. For everyone reading, if you want to challenge any of this, please note: The burden of proof is on you.

Let’s clear a few things up, shall we?

  • 9/11 was not an inside job.
  • Sandy Hook was not a “false flag.”
  • Neither was the Boston Marathon bombing, the San Bernardino shooting, the Paris attacks, or any other bombing or shooting.
  • In fact, there is no such thing as a “false flag” (as the term is used in conspiracy circles).
  • We really did land on the moon.
  • The Holocaust really happened.
  • Fluoride in the water supply isn’t a mind control experiment – it really is just good for your teeth.
  • There are no chemtrails, just contrails.
  • GMOs are just as safe as conventional foods.
  • Organic isn’t healthier.
  • It’s not better for the environment either.
  • Vaccines work and they don’t cause autism.
  • Homeopathy doesn’t work.
  • Alternative medicine is not medicine.
  • For people who have type I diabetes, insulin is not optional.
  • Pot doesn’t cure everything.
  • Big Pharma is not suppressing a known cure for cancer.
  • Everything is made of chemicals.
  • The relative positions of the planets do not determine your personality or your future.
  • The past was not romantic. Life was not idyllic, easy, healthy, or long 50,000 years ago.
  • Not 5,000 years ago or 500 years ago either.
  • Guns don’t make you safer.
  • And jack-booted thugs are not going to kick your door in any minute now to take them away from you.
  • Gay sex does not cause earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts, tsunamis, fires, volcano eruptions, landslides, stock market crashes, train derailments, bridge collapses, oil spills, or anything else.
  • Big Government is not secretly controlling every aspect of human life.
  • Speed limits are not tyranny.
  • Making health insurance affordable is not actually just as bad as slavery.
  • Taxes are not theft.
  • Nuclear power is safe.
  • The zombie apocalypse is not coming.
  • The universe started with the Big Bang 13.8 billion years ago.
  • The earth is a sphere that orbits the sun.
  • And it is 4.54 billion years old.
  • Anthropogenic climate change is real.
  • Evolution by natural selection really happened. In fact, it is still happening.
  • There is no evidence for ghosts, an afterlife, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, ancient aliens, alien abductions, reincarnation, telepathy, telekinesis, clairvoyance, precognition, the soul, demons, spirits, angels, witchcraft, or magic.
  • There almost certainly is no god.

Evidence matters. Even when you don’t like it. Even when it contradicts your deeply held beliefs. Even when it makes you really uncomfortable.

Evidence. Fucking. Matters.

Ten Signs You Might Be a Regressive Skeptic

1312291457832
Image credit: Internet Reaction Face Archive
At this point there is little I could say about the tragic comedy that is the Regressive Left in the wake of the terrible attacks in Paris of November 13 that hasn’t already been said, probably better than I could have said it (most especially here and here). As people discussed the attacks and the ideologies and policies implicated therein in the many atheism- and skepticism-centered groups that I frequent, a similarly alarming realization has dawned on me: That just as there are Regressive Leftists who are actively betraying liberal ideals, so too are there what I will henceforth call Regressive Skeptics who are undermining the credibility and effectiveness of the skeptical community. Here are a few behaviors that should raise your antenna when observed in a fellow “skeptic.”

1. They treat constructive feedback as a personal attack.

Let’s face it: No one really likes getting constructive feedback. Hearing about the things that other people think you did wrong or could have done better is not usually a lot of fun, but when offered from a place of authenticity and backed up with sound reasoning, it can be incredibly enlightening. Back in my corporate days, my mentor was someone whose brain could not have been wired more differently from my own, and that dichotomy proved to be of great value because he saw things in a way that would never in a million years have occurred to me. Sometimes his observations hurt, and sometimes I disagreed with him, but they were always worth considering.

The Regressive Skeptic, on the other hand, will give lip service to the benefits of healthy debate, but the unspoken caveat is that he’s always going to be right, and that his opponent will sooner or later concede this. When his arguments are poor, his premise weak, or his opponent tenacious, he becomes indignant and rude, increasingly fallacious, and eventually ends the debate with a flounce (“Whatever,” “I don’t even care at this point,” “Let’s agree to disagree,” “Just let it go already”).

It’s OK to run out of time or patience for a discussion. It’s OK to be annoyed or hurt by criticism you think is unfair. It’s not OK go on the offense at the first hint of criticism without even considering whether there’s something to it.

2. There are areas of inquiry they consider off-limits.

This is another way of calling out the hypocrisy of Regressive Skeptics who will mercilessly go after homeopathy, chiropractic, GMO-denial, the paleo diet, and other forms of woo, but refuse to touch religion, the Grande Dame of all woo. It is the single-most pervasive and common mechanism by which people learn to accept that for which there is no evidence and to rationalize contradictory evidence. Some skeptics even hold religious beliefs, which is a curiosity that is difficult for me to understand, but which in and of itself is less problematic than those who simply dodge the issue altogether – or worse, pander to their religious followers with assertions that science and religion are entirely compatible, or admonish their openly atheist counterparts to keep quiet so as not to alienate potential allies.

If you are more interested in promoting science literacy than anti-theism, that’s great. Science literacy is tremendously important and a laudable pursuit. But don’t be disingenuous for the sake of popularity, and don’t make efforts to undermine those of us who place anti-theism at the top of our own list.

3. They ignore questions asking for clarification or treat them like fallacious arguments.

Especially on the internet it is easy to inject emotion, intentionally or not, into a discussion. Without the benefit of seeing someone’s facial expressions and body language and hearing their vocal inflections, translating what they’re trying to express is made that much harder, and if your opponent doesn’t write well to begin with, you have a real challenge on your hands. It’s important to know what your opponent is actually saying if you hope to provide any kind of meaningful response, and sometimes the only way to do that is to repeat back what you think you heard (“I read your comment as saying X” or “So are you claiming that Y?”). Whereas someone with a degree of maturity and fair-mindedness should be able to distinguish between a clarifying question that got it wrong and a deliberate mis-characterization, the Regressive Skeptic will immediately respond as though the question was a straw man. This of course erodes understanding even further, because the opponent still doesn’t know what she is responding to and now she has to defend herself against the straw man accusation too. It’s a strategy that relies on misunderstanding to win, rather than on having a defensible premise and a sound argument.

4. They reject any argument coming from “the other side” regardless of whether it has merit.

The most obvious example of this is the Regressive Left’s refusal to acknowledge that the “Islamic” in “Islamic State” has anything whatsoever to do with, you know, Islam. They are so fearful of being mistakenly associated with the likes of Donald Trump, so afraid of being labeled a racist, that they cover their eyes and ears and make excuses for mass murderers and theocratic fascists. It’s an unconscionable form of denialism because it trivializes the suffering caused by ISIS and similar organizations, and sacrifices those who are most vulnerable in those societies on the altar of white guilt and a warped vision of multiculturalism.

It’s bad enough for an anti-vax, organic-kale-eating, Spirit Science-reading loon to go down that rabbit hole. When people who claim to be skeptical thinkers place ideology over reality in this way, it’s unforgivable. They are ceding the discussion to the Far Right and the jihadists by refusing to acknowledge the nuances – not because the nuances aren’t true, but because they cannot abide that the Far Right might have a point. And the only thing I can think to say to those Regressive Skeptics is, shame on you.

5. They give advice that they don’t take.

“You should read authors who disagree with you. To help you with that, here is a list of authors who agree with me.”

“You only selected that source because it confirms what you already believe! To prove you are wrong, I am posting this thing that confirms what I already believe!”

Yes, we are all vulnerable to confirmation bias, and yes, there is a tendency when debating a topic to seek out evidence that supports one’s own premise. But it’s also entirely possible that your opponent has actually read all of those authors and found their arguments to be unpersuasive, and it’s entirely possible that your confirmation bias is at much in play as your opponent’s. Whether it is or not, if you are dismissing a credible source just because it is in agreement with your opponent you’ve just forfeited any claim to that pedestal from which you’re preaching.

6. They refuse to acknowledge their own errors.

We all make them. It’s embarrassing – humiliating, even – and it can be a blow to self-confidence, but it is likely also instructive and can lead to personal growth and better methodology in the future. But an error is guaranteed to damage your credibility only when you refuse to admit to it. This is not to say that we must agree every time we are accused of making a mistake that we have actually made one; sometimes we are misunderstood, or were right but perhaps not clear, or were both right and clear and it is our opponent who is mistaken. On those occasions when we have in fact erred, though, we usually know it. The mature, responsible, honest thing to do at that point is fess up and fix it. Unless it’s something that simply can’t be denied, the Regressive Skeptic can be counted on to circle the wagons at the mere suggestion that she made a mistake, often resorting to personal attacks and other deflections. She will profess her fallibility in general terms, but fight like hell when confronted with it.

7. They measure others by a different yardstick than they measure themselves or their associates.

This may be another manifestation of confirmation bias, but it happens often enough to warrant its own discussion. If someone is truly a skeptic, then that person should have a relatively consistent standard for what sources or types of arguments pass the sniff test, and should endeavor to at least meet if not exceed those standards – if for no other reason than to ensure sound arguments that are difficult to refute, but hopefully also for the sake of integrity and respect for the search for what is true. The Regressive Skeptic, on the other hand, accepts or rejects sources on a sliding scale based on their utility and expediency rather than their merits, and will often happily commit logical fallacies in the process of accusing opponents of committing logical fallacies. Another manifestation of this phenomenon is the glee with which Regressive Skeptics will mock woo-followers, but when the subject turns to religion they wag their fingers and say, “You should only criticize the beliefs, not the believers.” It’s a willingness not only to resort to, but indeed to exploit a double standard.

8. They mine others’ arguments for fallacies rather than seeking to understand what they’re saying.

A friend of mine refers to this as “fallacy barking:” Simply pointing out real or perceived logical fallacies in their opponents’ arguments rather than speaking to their premise or making a solid argument of their own. Often they will not even put their fallacy accusation into context, making it difficult to respond at all if it isn’t obvious how (or even if) that fallacy was committed.

This isn’t to say that it isn’t important to understand logical fallacies; indeed, this is a necessary skill for constructing sound arguments and inoculating ourselves against bad ones, and overall is a useful addition to the critical thinking toolkit. Fallacy barking, on the other hand, is a tactic of obfuscation, not befitting anyone who values the actual pursuit of knowledge and understanding.

9. They place identity politics or ideology ahead of scientific findings or other verifiable realities.

It’s hip to claim that the science is settled on matters of sexual orientation, gender identity, and other issues of diversity. New findings that challenge the social justice narrative in these arenas are often vilified and their authors viciously attacked, something that Alice Dreger examines in fascinating detail in her book Galileo’s Middle Finger. Just as with denying the role of Islam in Islamism, rejecting credible, peer-reviewed data simply because it doesn’t conform to the current PR message of a given cause is the antithesis of skepticism: It’s science denial. Might those findings eventually be shown to be untrue? Of course. But that is a decision best left to science, not to its suppression.

10. They equate an opponent who is persistent or correct with an opponent who is just an asshole.

Your being wrong doesn’t make me an asshole. Your making fallacious arguments doesn’t make me an asshole. My calling you out on both of those doesn’t make me an asshole. My providing evidence that backs up my claim and refutes yours doesn’t make me an asshole. My not conceding the argument when you have failed to make your case doesn’t make me an asshole. And to paraphrase the late, great Christopher Hitchens, when you say I’m an asshole I’m still waiting to hear what your point is.

But when you throw up your hands, call me names, and stomp off to the corner to go eat worms?  That pretty much does makes you an asshole.